Plot: Mostly fictionalized account of the life of Ghenghis Khan, the Mongol warlord whose 13th century armies conquered much of the known world. Named Temujin, he was taken prisoner by the rival warlord Jamuga and as punishment was forced to wear a large round wooden stock that severely restricted his…Runtime: 120 minRelease Date: 23 Jun 1965

Action story, intrigue and well worth seeing more than once...(by lora64)

I simply enjoyed the tale of Genghis Khan for its absorbing entertainment. I say "entertainment" because that's what movies are for. If I want a history lesson I'll turn to the encyclopedia for that.Omar Sharif in the lead role is excellent, and with some tender romance and family life added in for interest it gives value to what he stands for.Stephen Boyd here is at times the scruffy villain, but to me he can do no wrong and is just adding variety to his roles as an actor.James Mason, one of my fascinating favourites, with a multitude of roles in his career, is rather <more>

amusing in his portrayal of Kam Ling, attempting to be ever so diplomatic at all times, almost like a chess player surmising his opponent's next move. Intrigue at its best.Robert Morley as the Emperor is a fine example of dissolute excess, and shows us what imperialism can become - tedious and boring in the midst of riches so that his life is almost trivial in purpose. Morley always is a good supporting actor, in my opinion.Of course there are many battles to be fought and won in the course of this film, all history in the making, however accurate or inaccurate it may be. By the way, for those critics who disparage the lack of true facts regarding the order of events, I'm reminded of Jan Sibelius' comment on "critics" in general. He said more or less in these words, that "no one ever built a monument to a critic" so let's not take them too seriously.Enjoy the movie and pass the popcorn!

I don't understand you folks who are comparing this movie to John Waynes conqueror. You must be kidding, right? That movie was possibly the worst movie ever. It makes Plan 9 look like Oscar type fo stuff. I mean come on people. Can't you just see Wayne saying, "Well we better go and take care of those pilgrims over there in persia, wa, haw, haw, haw! Puhleeeze1 Ghengis Khan was much better than that for petes sake. Was it great, no! But it was hardly that bad! To be honest I enjoyed it. but for the entertainment value. It was a fun movie. That is all. But John Wayne as Ghengis <more>

Khan? You have got to be kidding me. That is laughable in the extreme. "Those little mongol pilgrims better get it done, wa, haw, haw, haw!LOL

While his former partner in Britain's Warwick Films, Al Broccoli, went off to make the incredibly successful James Bond series, producer Irving Allen was left to try and kick-start his solo career with a pair of last-gasp mini-spectacles in partnership with Tito's Avala Film Studios. Allen initially saw himself following in the footsteps of the Bronston-Franco relationship in Spain just as it was beginning to collapse but both his films, "The Long Ships" and "Genghis Khan", proved to be box-office flops. They did however introduce Yugoslavian locations to <more>

American producers and Avala had some success attracting film production dollars for another couple of decades."Genghis Khan" is a comic book version of the conqueror's life and if you approach it at that level, it is quite watchable. It is far, far, better than RKO's, "The Conqueror", with John Wayne as the Khan. While the star-cast of ten established actors is a waste of talent all of whom look out of place in their roles and make-up , this is within the reduced dramatic ambition of what's being attempted here. The worst of the casting isn't with Mason or Morley, as a Chinese Mandarin and his emperor. That rests with Francoise Dorleac and her brothers, as the Khan's love and his three generals. They would have looked more at home at a Soho costume party. Dusan Radic's score is bombastic but quite effective. As with "The Long Ships", he has given the picture a signature theme which is memorable. Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography is always attractive and the settings are colorful, though not sufficiently lavish. The budget- production shows in a Chinese city that looks more like a theme-park and should have been written into the script as a palace grounds. It's a dozen structures, running divider walls, a canal, large moon-windowed palace facade, and a two-hundred-and-fifty foot section of fortified wall and gate, sprawled across 10 manicured acres, but a Chinese city it's not. 2nd unit director, Cliff Lyons' battle scenes are very fast and effective and feature lots of running horse-falls that had been outlawed on U.S. locations, 25 years earlier. He and director, Henry Levin, were restricted to maximum day-calls of 325 extras, of which no more than 250 could be mounted. So, again and again, film editor Geoffrey Foote is forced to cut from wide-shots as the crowds thin out. This is a hard way to conquer half the known world. Whether they belong in the film or not, most of the cast appears sincere in trying to deliver their paper-thin character sketches without pretension, and the behind-the-scenes crew creates a handsome product, which ends up being a travelogue of Yugoslavian production locations. In the end, only Tito really conquered here.

what atmosphere - outstanding - as good a boy's dream as they get(by karlericsson)

When I was thirteen and a half, I saw this film at least three times in a row. I've seen it as a grown-up on video and it still gave away some of its magic. Except in 'odd man out', James Mason has never been better as an actor. Morley shines. Both of them are so much more Chinese with dignity than any Chinese could be. But this movie really belongs to Francois Dorleac, Omar Sharif, Stephen Boyd and a litte Telly Savalas. T and a that made a boy dream in a surrounding where you usually did not see them in those times. Pure fantasy - who cares about history, it's all baloney <more>

anyway - this is as true as any history. It's fantasy and adventure and I'm looking forward to see it on DVD in widescreen - but when?

Historical accuracy is not very likely in an epic like this, but that's not the point, especially after so many years have passed since it was made. Considering 'Genghis Khan' now, it stands out as a dandy museum piece, not only in the 'they don't make 'em like this any more' category, but because it's such a full-blown try at making a splash in the epic film sweepstakes of the 1960s.Yeah, it's a tinker-toy epic, but great fun, despite aiming at serious drama. Only 'Marco the Magnificent' outdoes it for 'Mutinational Production Prize' of its <more>

era.Interestingly, it's a 'gap-filler' epic. That is, in the years when every ancient or legendary subject/culture seemed to be tackled by producers, hoping to strike 'Ben-Hur' gold, filmmakers shopped around history, looking for unique subjects to make an impression. Sooner or later the great Khan's number was going to come up. 'The Conqueror' with John Wayne seems more like a western duh! , while 'Genghis' actually has a central Asian feel to it. Like its mate, 'The Long Ships', this is a Yugoslavian-filmed venture, a mini attempt to emulate Sam Bronston's epic production efforts over in Spain.After Bronston's great empire unfortunately folded, other attempts to take up the epic gauntlet were made. This is one of the most sincere. A great cast, pretty respectable art direction, a sense of epic sweep, and a predictable but often witty script, they're all here. I'm sure the distinguished cast did it for the money, but at least they probably had a good time doing it. At its best it's a decent try at being epic. At its worst, it's a curiosity, but a pretty amusing one.Highlights: - Dusan Radic's fantastic score. He achieves a Rosza-like standard, I think.Michael Hordern yelling 'TEMM-U-JEEN!!!' endlessly.Omar Sharif's yoke. Enthusiasts can see who wears his longer: Omar or John Wayne.James Mason's Mandarin parody. Politically correct it ain't.Bob Morley steals the show as usual , as the effete emperor. The only character in cinema history who is killed just by WATCHING fireworks. Best line, as he hands a featherweight fan to a servant: 'Take it, it grows heavy'.Orson Welles WASN'T in this one, but should have been.Francoise Dorleac is of course very Euro, but not bad to look at.Any picture with Geoffrey Unsworth behind the camera is going to have some stuff going for it. Seeing it in full Panavision on the big screen would certainly give this picture more respectability.I await its' much-deserved DVD appearance.